A Federal High Court in Abuja has authorised former Vice-President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar to serve President Bola Tinubu with court documents through the All Progressives Congress (APC) in a case challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the request for substituted service on Wednesday after listening to an ex parte application brought by Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, who appeared for Atiku’s lawyer, Silas Onu.
The judge directed that the court processes be served on Tinubu through the APC within seven days.
The decision followed the plaintiffs’ failure to personally serve the president with the originating processes in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026.
Atiku and the ADC are listed as the plaintiffs, while Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are the first, second and third defendants respectively.
During the proceedings, Omotayo-Ojo explained that the request for substituted service became necessary after attempts to personally serve Tinubu were unsuccessful.
After the lawyer confirmed that the plaintiffs could complete the service within seven days, Justice Ekwo granted the application.
The court has adjourned the matter until September 28 for mention.
Atiku and the ADC are challenging Tinubu’s qualification to seek another term over an NYSC discharge certificate which they allege was forged.
According to the plaintiffs, a certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which they argue amounts to the presentation of false information to the electoral body.
Their case relies on Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which addresses disqualification connected to the presentation of a forged certificate to INEC.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that Tinubu presented a forged certificate and to disqualify him and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
Tinubu and the APC have rejected the allegation that any forged certificate was submitted to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
In their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, the president and APC asked the court to throw out the case, arguing that it was incompetent and that Atiku and the ADC lacked the legal standing to institute it.
They also denied submitting Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 elections as alleged by the plaintiffs.
INEC has separately questioned the competence of the suit, raising grounds including statute bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process.
CONFUSION OVER TINUBU’S LEGAL REPRESENTATION
The case has also produced separate filings from two Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Akin Olujinmi and Wole Olanipekun, who have both indicated that they are representing Tinubu.
Olujinmi filed a counter-affidavit and written address for Tinubu and the APC, challenging the competence of the suit as well as Atiku’s legal standing to question Tinubu’s candidacy.
He argued that the allegation of forgery is criminal in nature and must be established beyond reasonable doubt under the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi further maintained that Atiku and the ADC had not presented evidence from the NYSC denying that the discharge certificate was issued to Tinubu.
He therefore urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the case.
Olanipekun separately filed a preliminary objection and counter-affidavit on behalf of Tinubu, also asking the court to dismiss the suit.
In a September 10 letter addressed to the deputy chief registrar of the court, Olanipekun said Tinubu had instructed him to lead a team of lawyers to represent and defend the president in the matter.
He said Tinubu had not been served with the originating processes and that the president directed his legal team to appear when the case came up on September 1.
According to Olanipekun, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appeared in court for Tinubu on that date and attempted to obtain copies of the documents filed by the plaintiffs.
Olanipekun later requested that the court provide his team with either the service copy or a certified true copy of the originating processes so that Tinubu could formally respond to the suit.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have asked to amend parts of the suit. Among the proposed changes is a correction to the description of the INEC form allegedly attached to the disputed certificate, from Form CF001 to Form EC9.
